|
-
Originally Posted by gazaprop
Toodles, I'd be the same were the shoes on the other feet.
The time for inquiry and holding feet to fires is when we've got on top of this situation. I agree with Johnson that Starmer is only serving to undermine public confidence, as did Cummins' with the Durham Dash.
The time in post argument just won't wash I'm afraid because no one has had the benefit of a preparation period.
HMG has always said they've followed scientific advice so, if Starmer were running the show, presumably he wouldn't be going Tonto on the job and doing his own thing.
Attacking without alternative, with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight, helps no one and is not the role of the opposition in times of crisis. I see it as political posturing for political gain.
I could only see one outcome from any coalition committee, and that is one or other party walking out in a huff, meaning time wasted when that isn't a luxury we can afford. This would be a case of too many cooks.
On the cult comment - Toodles, people in glass houses comes to mind - I'm not going to fall out with you on this but a choice between a scruffy chancer and a shyster lawyer is a toughie for me.
Odd how we can watch the same thing and come away with two different impressions.
We'll agree to differ on this, gaza. But it's always interesting reading a different point of view.
-
Member Post Likes / Dislikes - 1 Likes, 0 Dislikes
Check Todays Deals on Ebay.co.uk
Check Todays Deals On Amazon.co.uk
-
…a scruffy chancer and a shyster lawyer? Really?
…HMG has always said they've followed scientific advice so,
…but a choice between a scruffy chancer and a shyster lawyer …
The scientists have always said the government takes the decisions. The Science has often been equivocal. That does not excuse the government for assorted contentious and plausibly ideological policy choices. The Prime Minister and the government have been hiding behind a claim to have "followed scientific advice". Consequently, the government reacts defensively to valid questions about their choices.
Evidently you're feeling defensive on behalf of the government, too; are you? You'd feel less so, if Starmer conducted his PMQs like a "shyster lawyer". Perhaps time will tell which of the two, the PM or the Leader of the Opposition, has greater personal integrity.
-
Member Post Likes / Dislikes - 0 Likes, 0 Dislikes
-
Originally Posted by sandGroundZero
The scientists have always said the government takes the decisions. The Science has often been equivocal. That does not excuse the government for assorted contentious and plausibly ideological policy choices.
Initially the government was following 'the science'. More recently they are 'advised by science'. Priti Patel, in the Commons today, stated they were 'advised by science and advised by the Health Secretary'. It think Matty has a loose noose around his neck.
Evidently you're feeling defensive on behalf of the government, too; are you? You'd feel less so, if Starmer conducted his PMQs like a " shyster lawyer". Perhaps time will tell which of the two, the PM or the Leader of the Opposition, has greater personal integrity.
Again, I suppose it depends on your point of view. For me, Starmer conducts himself impeccably. He's forensic, rarely raises his voice above normal speaking level, and counters his opponent's arguments as they are made instead of sticking to the script. I read today that Blair said his points were best made when spoken. The public are used to MPs howling at each other, so little of what is said is heard. He reckoned the public don't hear the insults, but a well made point resounds. 'Shyster' indicates dishonesty or fraud. Not words I'd associate with a Human Rights lawyer.
As for integrity, they are on different planets. I don't think Carrie herself would side with Johnson on the integrity front. His first two wives certainly wouldn't.
Again, it's 'your team or my team'. I look at the Cabinet and don't see a one-nation Tory among them, though I'd welcome other's opinions on that. Having said that, out of those in the Shadow Cabinet I familiar with, I'm not certain about all of them.
-
Member Post Likes / Dislikes - 0 Likes, 0 Dislikes
-
Starmer trying to stiff Boris today over the "non reply" to his letter when Boris had in fact rung him up, if correct shows alarming naivety from Starmer.
The politicians take the public cut and thrust as part of the job but taking that behind the scenes is a dangerous game.
Boris enjoys a big majority and Starmers Labour party has to run a charm offensive to get some influence and seem relevant.
Constantly berating someone as we know turns people off and doesn't help you.
Starmer needs to go past Johnson and offer the public a viable alternative whining from the back seat is as in the real world is very off putting.
Starmer will have to be almost a one man Labour party as he has some unelectable shadow cabinet members.
-
Member Post Likes / Dislikes - 0 Likes, 0 Dislikes
-
Originally Posted by gazaprop
Well only one of your five satisfies the criteria - that being number 3. The others are opinion, nothing more. Just in case you're minded to indignantly get out of your pram about my comment - yes, you're entitled to your opinion.
One good thing to come from Bo Jo today - during PMQ's he was able to tell Lord Smarmy or, Captain Negative if you like, to just shut the f*** up!
Even 3 is highly controversial, and that is not just based on opinion but the facts.
-
Member Post Likes / Dislikes - 0 Likes, 0 Dislikes
-
Originally Posted by sandGroundZero
The scientists have always said the government takes the decisions. The Science has often been equivocal. That does not excuse the government for assorted contentious and plausibly ideological policy choices. The Prime Minister and the government have been hiding behind a claim to have "followed scientific advice". Consequently, the government reacts defensively to valid questions about their choices.
Evidently you're feeling defensive on behalf of the government, too; are you? You'd feel less so, if Starmer conducted his PMQs like a "shyster lawyer". Perhaps time will tell which of the two, the PM or the Leader of the Opposition, has greater personal integrity.
The 'Scientists' whom the public hear from, and who are seen publicly are in the pay of the government. So of course those scientists have to follow the government decisions. Once those scientists have been told what to focus upon, they then have to create scientific explanations as to why such a decided fact is true.
"Starmer was head of an organisation that supported and enabled the political policing many of us have spent years fighting. Even if he didn’t have the oversight of what was happening with spycops, he was happy being part of that system. And that’s without going into detail over the appalling decisions Starmer made regarding prosecuting the officers involved in the deaths of Jean Charles de Menezes and Ian Tomlinson." Canary
-
Member Post Likes / Dislikes - 0 Likes, 0 Dislikes
-
…whose credibility is really at stake, here?
The 'Scientists' whom the public hear from, and who are seen publicly are in the pay of the government. So of course those scientists have to follow the government decisions. Once those scientists have been told what to focus upon, they then have to create scientific explanations as to why such a decided fact is true.
…a cynical post which suits your purposes, said, except that it impresses no one!
Given your many posts, forum readers will make their judgment about credibility and integrity — includes scientists on the government payroll and the Leader of the Opposition as well of course, your own credibility.
-
Member Post Likes / Dislikes - 0 Likes, 0 Dislikes
-
Predictably none of the hindsight Professors have come up with any "policies" which were of course missing from all parties manifesto's.
Still if Prof Said says the Scientists are simply government puppets then he is in good company.
The puppetry theory grows and now Saids on board.
Where will it end as "Dominics" theatre grows
-
Member Post Likes / Dislikes - 0 Likes, 0 Dislikes
-
Originally Posted by local
Predictably none of the hindsight Professors have come up with any "policies" which were of course missing from all parties manifesto's.
Still if Prof Said says the Scientists are simply government puppets then he is in good company.
The puppetry theory grows and now Saids on board.
Where will it end as "Dominics" theatre grows
Predictably, none of the hindsight professors has come up with any "policies" which were, of course, (or even "were off course"), missing from all parties' manifestos.
Still, if Prof Said says the scientists are simply government puppets, he is in good company.
The puppetry theory grows and now Said's on board.
Where will it end as "Dominic's" theatre grows?
Have a nice evening.
Age is simply a matter of mind - age doesn't matter if you don't mind
-
Member Post Likes / Dislikes - 0 Likes, 0 Dislikes
-
Originally Posted by Derek H
Predictably, none of the hindsight professors has come up with any "policies" which were, of course,
Not sure about that. If 'professors' is plural, wouldn't it be 'have'?
He has, they have?
Or is it 'professor's' with a possessive apostrophe?
Not seeing the post, and I don't really care about spelling and grammar, but I thought I'd join in while I'm waiting for an online quiz to start.
-
Member Post Likes / Dislikes - 1 Likes, 0 Dislikes
-
Originally Posted by Hamble
A Labour Government.
That would be a GREAT disaster!
-
Member Post Likes / Dislikes - 0 Likes, 0 Dislikes
-
Originally Posted by sandGroundZero
…a cynical post which suits your purposes, said, except that it impresses no one!
Given your many posts, forum readers will make their judgment about credibility and integrity — includes scientists on the government payroll and the Leader of the Opposition as well of course, your own credibility.
I am not employed by the public sector and I have not been given instructions to provide proof for X or Y event. Therefore, I have nothing to lose nor gain. As for my own credibility - I don't car a sh..t what anyone believes. It is for people to consider which evidence is more creditable for themselves. If the decision comes down against the evidence which I have supplied - then my failure is due to providing insufficient or ambiguous evidence. I have never intended to impress anyone - why should I, what good would that do for me or anyone else? My intention it to provide an alternative channel of thought, cynical or otherwise, which is often contrary to mass conception.
-
Member Post Likes / Dislikes - 0 Likes, 0 Dislikes
-
Originally Posted by local
As it appears we have some hindsight experts on just about everything on here could we now have in advance for a change what "disaster" you think we should plan and more importantly pay for now ?
Don't forget to mention what we cut from the budget to pay for it.
The UK is fortunate that we do not experience many natural disasters. Modern living has diminished disease to manageable levels and our climate is unlikely to create starvation situations.
The only health issue could be created by visitors from any region in the world carrying a special mutated virus of a disease, which then co-joins with a mutated, but adsorbent virus in the UK. Scientists argue often about viruses, some claim that a virus is a living organism while others claim it is merely a chemical microbe. A virus is indeed a parasite, but it is also one of the most numerous organisms on the planet proving that it is a very successful microbe.
There is already funding in place for pandemics/epidemics and has been for many years.
Flooding could be seen as a major disaster. This is a man made event where short term profits lead to long term and much greater expense. Continuous building on flood plains combined with the destruction of earth binding shrubs and water absorbing trees - does not a healthy environment make. There are agencies for flooding funding, but if humans continue in the same activities as they are, even greater funding will be necessary.
War! Yes, very highly possible. As time passes more and more technology is invented, and technical knowledge advances. But, these are stagnated, not by religion as in the past, but by the most basic of human evils - greed and power. There are several country's leaders who seek overall power. They become incensed when one country's leader can supersede their own efforts in any particular field. So opposing leaders will do everything in their power to bring down a leading head, honestly or dishonestly. If they are unable to do so sufficiently , it could lead to war. This is happening in several countries at present. First there are fake accusations issued by every media outlet against the leading country and if these are not accepted by the public, then the issue could manifest into a war. But not with guns, tanks and aircraft at first. It would begin with cyber warfare.
Funding for this would be huge - the only very large domestic funding source arises from motorists and financial institutions, but funding would increase by interested investors.
Talking of which, the British Financial Institutions could collapse due to another World power making interest rates or the package more attractive, whereby the greater mass of investors would swiftly change to chase greater profits. Since financial institutions are tenuous at the best of times - this should be covered by self insurance.
-
Member Post Likes / Dislikes - 0 Likes, 0 Dislikes
-
Originally Posted by said
That would be a GREAT disaster!
Well, it's obvious that this government is making a right pig's ear of the pandemic response.
Delayed lockdown, delayed testing, delayed quarantine for arrivals at airports, delayed compulsory wearing of masks, track and trace nowhere near ready and weakness in dealing with the Cummings affair.
Although he survived Covid-19, I think it would be apt to refer to the PM as the very late Boris Johnson.
The country's reputation abroad is one of ridicule.
God help us all when the second wave hits.
Don't go to bed angry. Stay up and plot your revenge.
-
Member Post Likes / Dislikes - 1 Likes, 0 Dislikes
-
Originally Posted by Derek H
Predictably, none of the hindsight professors has come up with any "policies" which were, of course, (or even "were off course"), missing from all parties' manifestos.
Still, if Prof Said says the scientists are simply government puppets, he is in good company.
The puppetry theory grows and now Said's on board.
Where will it end as "Dominic's" theatre grows?
Have a nice evening.
Aah Degsy my little pet stalker.
Thank goodness you dunno know where I live udderwise you would be dossing round, would you like some of my old pants to sniff ?
-
Member Post Likes / Dislikes - 0 Likes, 0 Dislikes
|
Search Qlocal (powered by google)
Privacy & Cookie Policy
Check Todays Deals On Amazon.co.uk
Check Todays Deals on Ebay.co.uk
Booking.com
Supporting Local Business
Be Seen - Advertise on Qlocal
UK, Local Online News Community, Forums, Chats, For Sale, Classified, Offers, Vouchers, Events, Motors Sale, Property For Sale Rent, Jobs, Hotels, Taxi, Restaurants, Pubs, Clubs, Pictures, Sports, Charities, Lost Found
UK,
UK News,
|